While Tuesday only saw a minor bump of $2.13, or 0.3 percent, it was enough to push the stock price to $701.91, the first time Apple shares closed above $700 in company history. The Cupertino tech giant now has a market cap of nearly $658 billon, a value more than $250 billion higher than America's second-largest company Exxon Mobil.

A new intraday record was also set on Tuesday as the stock reached $702.33 less than an hour before the NASDAQ closed.

Thought to be a major factor in the stock's rise is Apple's record-breaking iPhone 5 pre-order round that saw two million orders in 24 hours.

In a subsequent note to investors, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said Apple is likely to sell about eight million iPhone 5 units in its first weekend of sales, a number that doubles the results from last year's iPhone 4S launch. He goes on to say that by the end of the quarter, the smartphone could reach a lofty 10 million unit sales.

Apple's newest handset is set to roll out on Friday in nine countries, to be followed by an additional 22 countries on Sept. 28 in what will be the company's fastest product rollout ever.

But it's just a bubble, imagine how hard it will fall when Apple tanks, this doesn't mean anything because Samsung makes refrigerators, think of the children(!), rectangle patents, Foxconn suicides oh my!, Apple hates babies, satsfied customers are biased, Steve would never have allowed this, Lucy Koh hates Samsung (especially when she leaves it up to a jury), iOS is stale, etc., etc., etc.

Now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world and according to Tim Cook "makes much more money than they need to operate" they ought to consider lowering prices across their line to make them more competitive with Windows PCs.

Now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world and according to Tim Cook "makes much more money than they need to operate" they ought to consider lowering prices across their line to make them more competitive with Windows PCs.

'Competitive' by lowering prices on products that are already outselling your competition both in quality and performance? You're not serious are you?

Now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world and according to Tim Cook "makes much more money than they need to operate" they ought to consider lowering prices across their line to make them more competitive with Windows PCs.

Deleted my unnecessarily snarky post.

(melgross has a far better response).Edited by anantksundaram - 9/18/12 at 4:23pm

But it's just a bubble, imagine how hard it will fall when Apple tanks, this doesn't mean anything because Samsung makes refrigerators, think of the children(!), rectangle patents, Foxconn suicides oh my!, Apple hates babies, satsfied customers are biased, Steve would never have allowed this, Lucy Koh hates Samsung (especially when she leaves it up to a jury), iOS is stale, etc., etc., etc.
/s
Did I miss anything?

I think you've got it all covered, but you could have scored a few style points by slipping a good ol' fashioned "beleaguered" in there somewhere.

Now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world and according to Tim Cook "makes much more money than they need to operate" they ought to consider lowering prices across their line to make them more competitive with Windows PCs.

He didn't say " much more money than they need to operate". He did say that the evaluated their position as far as capital goes, and that they had more money than they needed to operate the company, and so they were going to return that money to the stockholders.

In addition, most of that money is held overseas. Bringing it home would involve paying billions in taxes. Companies are loath to do that because they've already paid taxes on it, and feel that taxes paid locally on money made locally should be sufficient.

It's naive to think that they should lower prices because of cash on hand and investments.

You might as well convince Microsoft to lower prices on their software, as they have much higher margins on that than Apple has on its products. They've also got a large cash hoard. Same thing with the oil companies, and lots of others.

I'm glad they (and all the other chumps that doubted Job's vision for a business model) are able to witness it.

Job's had to learn to respect operational perfection as well as product perfection to insure a hugely profitable company... But once he did, Apple was destined for greatness.

It's totally awesome that a company can be so successful by having it run by people who want to make great sh&t instead of just a sh&t load of money. Obviously, the money follows. But the focus on great products, great software and great user experience in EVERY possible detail is obviously what Apple has been focused on since Job's returned.

Most companies follow the path: "What will make us the most money?" ---> "What will people buy to make us the most amount of money?" ---> "How can we cut corners to optimize profit and make the most money?" ---> "Let's make it."

Apple seems to follow the path: "What idea/device seems totally awesome?" -->"Let's design/develop it." ---> "Is it as cool as we thought it was going to be AND would I buy it?" If yes to both -->"Let's make it" If no to either -->"Let's not make it... yet (until price goes down or design improved)"

Now that Apple is the most valuable company in the world and according to Tim Cook "makes much more money than they need to operate" they ought to consider lowering prices across their line to make them more competitive with Windows PCs.

Haven't you heard that the growth in Windows PCs is flat and declining -- while the growth in Macs is raising and increasing?

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

It's certainly possible. That's only around 30% more than it is now. If Apple's sales and profits are more than 30% higher at the time it might make it, but if they are more than 50% higher, as is very likely, it's hard to believe it won't get there by then.

But it's just a bubble, imagine how hard it will fall when Apple tanks, this doesn't mean anything because Samsung makes refrigerators, think of the children(!), rectangle patents, Foxconn suicides oh my!, Apple hates babies, satsfied customers are biased, Steve would never have allowed this, Lucy Koh hates Samsung (especially when she leaves it up to a jury), iOS is stale, etc., etc., etc.
/s
Did I miss anything?

Good start but don't forget about US jobs, under-aged Foxconn workers, and privacy issues.

I'm glad they (and all the other chumps that doubted Job's vision for a business model) are able to witness it.

Job's had to learn to respect operational perfection as well as product perfection to insure a hugely profitable company... But once he did, Apple was destined for greatness.

It's totally awesome that a company can be so successful by having it run by people who want to make great sh&t instead of just a sh&t load of money. Obviously, the money follows. But the focus on great products, great software and great user experience in EVERY possible detail is obviously what Apple has been focused on since Job's returned.

Most companies follow the path: "What will make us the most money?" ---> "What will people buy to make us the most amount of money?" ---> "How can we cut corners to optimize profit and make the most money?" ---> "Let's make it."

Apple seems to follow the path: "What idea/device seems totally awesome?" -->"Let's design/develop it." ---> "Is it as cool as we thought it was going to be AND would I buy it?" If yes to both -->"Let's make it" If no to either -->"Let's not make it... yet (until price goes down or design improved)"

But it's just a bubble, imagine how hard it will fall when Apple tanks, this doesn't mean anything because Samsung makes refrigerators, think of the children(!), rectangle patents, Foxconn suicides oh my!, Apple hates babies, satsfied customers are biased, Steve would never have allowed this, Lucy Koh hates Samsung (especially when she leaves it up to a jury), iOS is stale, etc., etc., etc.
/s
Did I miss anything?

Add something about Apple stealing the notification shade from Android and that about covers it.

I have been gifting shares to my daughter.. Now we both have started gifting shares to her 3 teenagers.
If all works as planned, most of my "estate" will be gifted and will avoid the tax man.
Edit: this doesn't include my "Terrible Towels" -- they're mine!

If you want to gift some my way I wouldn't mind =)

lol I had bought AAPL back in 98 and 99 when Steve had just come back, for 20 something a share, it split twice while I owned it and I ended up making about 10 grand when I sold it, I sold it after Apple had done very well with the ipods and itunes etc but before the major success of the Iphone, I figured Apple couldn't possibly do much more than it had done so I sold and upgraded my home, which went to my ex wife in the divorce, so now I look back and watch Apples stock go through the roof and I have nothing to show for it lol, but I still daydream that I had never sold it and live vicariously through those who still do own it.

I have been gifting shares to my daughter.. Now we both have started gifting shares to her 3 teenagers.

If all works as planned, most of my "estate" will be gifted and will avoid the tax man.

Edit: this doesn't include my "Terrible Towels" -- they're mine!

If you want to gift some my way I wouldn't mind =)

lol I had bought AAPL back in 98 and 99 when Steve had just come back, for 20 something a share, it split twice while I owned it and I ended up making about 10 grand when I sold it, I sold it after Apple had done very well with the ipods and itunes etc but before the major success of the Iphone, I figured Apple couldn't possibly do much more than it had done so I sold and upgraded my home, which went to my ex wife in the divorce, so now I look back and watch Apples stock go through the roof and I have nothing to show for it lol, but I still daydream that I had never sold it and live vicariously through those who still do own it.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.

Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.

If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

I agree, they have an extremely positive outlook, I see alot of predictions for 1k per share but I think it will split way before then.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

Certainly not going to get into a pissing contest about investments with @melgross...

However, it is easier for an investor-in-training to make trading decisions involving hundreds of dollars rather than tens of thousands of dollars.

From my experience, I could experiment with $17-$25 per share investment ideas -- but if it is a large percentage of your portfolio, a $700-$2,000 per share stock is not fungible.Edited by Dick Applebaum - 9/18/12 at 6:28pm

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Good for you! How long are you going to hold on to them? Depending on how much you own, that could be a small fortune!

For me, this isn't a simple question.

I bought some shares before the 2005 split in my Roth IRA. I could sell those, walk away with all the profits tax-free. I'd just need to reinvest in something that returns similar gains. Or maybe I should have sold AAPL and shorted FB.

The second batch was purchased in my regular brokerage account a few years later. Whatever shares I sell from that account would be subject to capital gains. However, I'm thinking of keeping those in my back pocket. If I ever have a one-time windfall in income, I could donate some of those fully-appreciated shares to charity and take the tax deduction without paying capital gains tax, whatever the rate is at that time.

When my AAPL holdings reaches 20% of my portfolio, I'll probably look at this much more seriously. Diversification is great, but AAPL is now a blue-chip, with more cash than anyone else, zero debt, and positive market growth. The shares are undervalued.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

My typical advice to new investors is to never buy more than 20% of your portfolio in a single transaction. So, a $700 stock would mean that to buy a single share then need to have $3,500 ready to trade. An awful lot of people would never get involved with that kind of barrier. I know I started out with $2,000 hard-scraped together cash back in '98. (Bought Metricom, the maker of the Ricochet wireless modems. Made a pretty good profit too for a while...)

Lower share prices do make stocks more accessible. I don't think you need to get into penny-stock levels, but at least low enough that a block isn't over $5-10k.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

My typical advice to new investors is to never buy more than 20% of your portfolio in a single transaction. So, a $700 stock would mean that to buy a single share then need to have $3,500 ready to trade. An awful lot of people would never get involved with that kind of barrier. I know I started out with $2,000 hard-scraped together cash back in '98. (Bought Metricom, the maker of the Ricochet wireless modems. Made a pretty good profit too for a while...)

Lower share prices do make stocks more accessible. I don't think you need to get into penny-stock levels, but at least low enough that a block isn't over $5-10k.

Yeah... I started with channeling stocks .com... Some stocks cycle between a hi-lo range over time. I had watched AAPL for a long time and they seemed to cycle between $11 and $23... So I bought some at $17.

It wasn't a major part of my holdings, so I just held it.

I have been buying ever since.

The nice part about Apple is that I know the company from personal experience and long term observation. Also, as secretive as they are -- there is plenty of info and analysis available on Apple -- probably more than any other corp.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.
I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

A lower share price would definitely make it easier to trade covered options.